[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11066: Introduce a MainLoop class and switch llgs to use it

[Greg Clayton]

clayborg added a comment.

Since there are going to require multiple patches to make this work it might be best to do this in a branch. I worry about being able to handle everything in a single threaded way and have it be faster. I worry about deadlocks and other things that might not be anticipated. Did you profile this to make sure the threading is a huge overhead? What exact parts are holding up things?


================
Comment at: include/lldb/Core/Connection.h:202
@@ +201,3 @@
+    virtual lldb::IOObjectSP
+    GetReadObject() { return nullptr; }
+
----------------
return "lldb::IOObjectSP()" instead of nullptr.

================
Comment at: tools/lldb-server/lldb-gdbserver.cpp:667
@@ -690,3 +666,3 @@
 
-    ConnectToRemote(gdb_server, reverse_connect,
+    ConnectToRemote(mainloop, gdb_server, reverse_connect,
                     host_and_port, progname, subcommand,
----------------
Why do you need to pass "mainloop" if it is already in gdb_server?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D11066